Varitimos v Queensland Electricity Commission - [1991] QLC 13

[1991] QLC 13

LAND COURT,

BRISBANE

20th June, 1991
Re: Claim for Compensation -
A89-10.

Anastasis Varitimos
v.
Queensland Electricity Commission
J U D G M E N T

Anastasis Varitimos is the registered proprietor of an estate in fee simple in the land described as Lot 11 on Registered Plan 136932, county of Stanley, parish of Tingalpa, containing an area of 3.22 hectares and being the whole of the land contained in Certificate of Title, Volume 5107, Folio 167. It has an angled frontage of 104 metres to Lindum Road, Lytton, a depth of 306.7 metres on its western boundary, a depth of 347.96 metres on the eastern boundary and a mean width of 97.9 metres.
  Lindum Road is a bitumen sealed secondary road with gravel shoulders without kerbing or channelling. The subject land is situated about 15 kilometres north-east of the General Post Office, Brisbane, 650 metres east of Lytton Road and about 500 metres west of Lindum Railway Station. The Lytton area caters for manufacturing and industrial storage with an established harbour industry. It supports heavy cargo movement by sea, rail and road, being located near the Fisherman Island wharf complex. All normal city services are available.
  The subject land is low-lying, being below the 2-metre contour. It was totally inundated in both the local flooding of 1967 which reached 3.09 metres and the Brisbane flood of 1974 which reached 2.58 metres AHD. Any development will require filling varying from 1 to 1.5 metres in depth. There is a dwelling house and incidental other improvements which do not add value to the land.
  The low-lying nature of the lands in this locality and the need to control inundation to enable the lands to be developed has attracted the attention of the Brisbane City Council which has prepared a Rivermouth Development Control Plan making provision for a future drainage network along the Bulimba Creek catchment. The general intention is for drainage works to be done to channel water into an overland flow path. This flow path generally follows property boundaries. So far as the subject land is concerned, there is a regulation line with a width of 30 metres along the eastern boundary of the subject land to be shared equally with the neighbouring properties (Exhibit 11). All applications for development are subject to the requirements of that Plan.
  By notice dated 2nd October, 1985, the Queensland Electricity Commission advised of the intention to resume an easement for Electrical Works purposes over the subject land. The path of this easement bisected the subject land. By notice dated 3rd December, 1986, the respondent Commission discontinued this resumption.
  Another notice of intention to resume issued on 3rd December, 1986, and by notice published in the Government Gazette 13th June, 1987, the respondent took, under the provisions of the Acquisition of Land Act 1962-1986, Easement A in Lot 11 on Registered Plan 136932 on Plan 194588, being a plan intended for registration in the Office of the Registrar of Titles, Brisbane,…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Varitimos v Queensland Electricity Commission

Details

AGLC: Varitimos v Queensland Electricity Commission [1991] QLC 13
Case: [1991] QLC 13
Decision Date: 20 June 1991

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Varitimos v. Queensland Electricity Commission, the Land Court of Brisbane heard a claim for compensation against the Queensland Electricity Commission by Anastasis Varitimos for the resumption of an easement over his property for electrical works purposes. The subject land was low-lying and required filling before development. Mr. Varitimos had intended to build a warehouse on the land but faced difficulties due to the overhead power lines and the existence of the easement. The court assessed the compensation based on the before and after value of the land, considering the diminution in value caused by the resumption. The court rejected claims for injurious affection and additional construction costs, finding them not sustainable. The final compensation awarded was $30,048, with interest on certain items from the date of resumption. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant's costs of the action.

Orders